[MG] Secret Ballots

>> While this is generally true at some levels, it cannot be true at all
>> levels. The issue of timing and *need* requires decisions without the
>> luxury of consensus or a (both/and) grey middle. Ultimately that is
>> what the executive branch is charged with doing, for example. Make a
>> "gut" decision and live with the/any consequences.
>> The issue of "urgency" has come up before, for example at:
>http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Talk:FAQ#Emergency_Planning> and my opinion is that it is a red herring.
> ...
> But more generally, I think that urgency itself is a question of consensus.
> Is there a consensus that there is an urgency in the first place? If not,
> then what need is there for action? If there is a consensus that something
> must be done right away, then people who are used to operating under
> collaborative governance systems should be able to reach a speedy consensus.
> If they all agree that something has to be done, then they are going to be
> much more willing to figure out what that something is.
This is a decent analysis, but I must say that as soon as you ask the
damn question: "Is this an urgent situation?" Then the answer is
*already* no. Urgent situations are one's where that luxury doesn't
exist (the mental dialog), OR the indulgence in that luxury would
create a unacceptable lack of progress. Examine carefully people who
are procrastinators.
> First, most Metagovernment projects are not starting as massive
> international or international projects; they are more focused on small
> organizations. The sort of crisis that a small organization may face usually
> does not entail life-or-death immediacy.
I'd say the issue of scale (nations vs small organizations) is a red
herring. While the scope of consequence may not be as great in the
long term, in the short term there is *need* to make progress. As a
solitary individual, for example, when faced with two equally good
choices, one must not end up like Buriden's Ass and starve oneself
with indecision.
> Further nuance is provided at the above link. (Most notably, that
> collaborative governance does not preclude leaders, only *empowered*
> leaders.)
This point I think needs further debate. I think a reputation network
would offer efficient allocation of decision-making authority while
also being fair; notably, it would *not* require consensus on every
decision (but transparency and accountability take care of that).
marcos